On 06 Nov 2015, at 05:26, Russell Standish wrote:
Rather than keeping on trying to explain this, if you're interested,
take a look at Wikipedia's page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction
I find this very weird. They ask why sex given that there is 50% cost
(fitness disadvantage): the answer seems to me obvious, even with
99%cost, as long as we mate enough. Salmon have 999,9% cost, and
nature shows having no fear of lost of individuals, as long as there
are enough local benefits for few individuals. Why binary mating
system? I think that the reason is that unary/binary change is an
optimal one (in fact that is why I favor bipartite in democracy: sex
with three people would be too costly, given that the evolutionary
maximal change benefits appears with two.
It amazes me that this is seen as an open problem. especially that we
use sex (of tomato, hemp, flower) to make the selection ourselves.
Selection by simple mutation is possible on virus and bacteria, but
even them use most often sex in nature, and we do use also to
accelerate the change in bacterial genome.
That is also why I think amoeba do some sex, although I have not yet
find evidence for this.
Certainly the details on how this appeared and is maintained is not
known, by, as initially Weismann suggested at the end of the 19th
century, the variation among siblings explains the importance of sex
in evolution. The genetic algorithm exploits also this.
That such a simple explanation is not satisfactory is weird. It is
like saying that evolution does not explain everything, which is
trivial to me, but it gives the main base on which we can improve the
theory. Sex is really a sort of dialog at the molecular level.
Bruno
It explains the problem, and various attempted solutions, including
the one Terren mentions below, and others I've mentioned.
Nevertheless, it is clear from that article that it is still an open
problem.
Cheers
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:04:56PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
That was my understanding too, Terren.
Brent
On 11/5/2015 6:52 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
The reason sex evolved seems so obvious to me that upon hearing
that there is no consensus, I fear I must be missing something.
Asexual reproduction leads to organisms that can only adapt to
changing environments as quickly as random mutation allows. And
environments change much more quickly than that, I think.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
